DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Situating Kant's Pre-Critical Monadology: Leibnizian Ubeity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Situating Kant's Pre-Critical Monadology: Leibnizian Ubeity 1 Situating Kant’s Pre-Critical Monadology: Leibnizian Ubeity, Monadic Activity, and Idealist Unity Edward Slowik Abstract: This essay examines the relationship between monads and space in Kant’s early pre-critical work, with special attention devoted to the question of ubeity, a Scholastic doctrine that Leibniz describes as “ways of being somewhere”. By focusing attention on this concept, evidence will be put forward that supports the claim, held by various scholars, that the monad-space relationship in Kant is closer to Leibniz’ original conception than the hypotheses typically offered by the later Leibniz-Wolff school. In addition, Kant’s monadology, in conjunction with God’s role, also helps to shed light on further aspects of his system that are broadly Leibnizian, such as monadic activity and the unity of space. One of the most important developments in Leibniz scholarship over roughly the past quarter century has been the widespread repudiation of the purely idealist or immaterialist interpretation of his late metaphysics (i.e., where only minds/souls and mental content exist, à la Berkeley) for a “realist” reading that accepts the existence of an external world of some sort (see, e.g., Garber 2009). An interestingly upshot of the realist interpretation of Leibniz is the close proximity it places his monadological metaphysics vis-à-vis Kant’s own pre-critical period monadology, a point that has been specifically raised by various commentators with respect to the non-spatiality of monads (e.g., Rutherford 2004, 231- 233). Yet, while Kant’s pre-critical monadology does indeed have many features in common with Leibniz’ approach, especially concerning the hypothesis that monads are not in space, several key components in Leibniz’ and Kant’s respective systems have been neglected in prior investigations of their similar monadic schemes: namely, (i) the concept of ubeity, a scholastic distinction that Leibniz discusses in the New Essays as a means of characterizing the different ways that a being can be related to space; (ii) the crucial role that monadic activity or operation assumes in their respective systems; as 2 well as (iii), God’s function as the grounds or foundation of the monads and the material world. As will be revealed in this essay, a focus on issues (i), (ii), and (iii) sheds new light on the textual evidence, and supports new arguments, concerning the close connection between Leibniz and Kant’s respective monadologies, especially as regards the non-spatiality of monads. In what follows, accordingly, section 1 will examine (i), (ii), and (iii) in Leibniz’ monadology, whereas section 2 will be devoted to these same issues as they appear in Kant’s pre-critical period output. In the concluding section, a brief defense of the similarities of the separate Leibnizian and Kantian monadic systems will be offered. 1. Leibniz, Ubeity, and Monadic Activity. In his late monadic metaphysics, Leibniz contends that monads are non-extended, partless entities that form bodies, which are also described as composites or aggregates of monads (“bodies are only aggregates”, G VII 344; AG 319).1 Nevertheless, besides possessing a merely ideal unity (e.g., G II 256), bodies are claimed to “result” from monads, a process that would seem to exclude the straightforward sense of aggregation or composition associated with, say, atomism: “properly speaking, matter is not composed of constitutive unities [monads], but results from them” (G II 268; AG 179). The fact that 1 The following abbreviations will be used for frequently cited works: L = Leibniz 1969; AG = Leibniz 1989; A = Leibniz 1923 (referenced with series, volume, and page number); LC = Leibniz and Clarke 2000 (referenced with Leibniz’ letter number and section); LDB = Leibniz 2007; G = Leibniz 1965 (referenced with volume and page number); GM = Leibniz 1962 (referenced with volume and page number); NE = Leibniz 1996 (referenced with book, chapter, section); CSMK = Descartes 1991; N = Newton 2004; TP = Kant 1992, cited with volume, followed by a colon, and page number, from the standard Academy edition of Kant’s works (same for other Kant work); NS = Kant 2012. 3 extended matter results from monads, but is not composed of monads, would seem to be a consequence of his belief that monads are not spatial: “monads in themselves do not even have situation with respect to each other—at least one that is real, which extends beyond the order of phenomena” (May 26, 1712; LDB 241-243). At greater length, he explains that any assignment of spatiality2 to monads (nearness, distance, or that they are in points) is misguided: [T]here is no absolute or spatial nearness or distance between monads. To say that they are crowded together in a point or disseminated in space is to employ certain fictions of our mind when we willingly seek to imagine things that can only be understood. (to Des Bosses, 16 June, 1712; LDB 255; also, G III 623) However, Leibniz also maintains that monads retain a sort of “derived position” within matter: “although monads are not extended, they nevertheless have a certain ordered relation of coexistence with others, namely, through the machine which they control” (G II 253; L 531).3 Leibniz’ puzzling claim that his non-spatial monads have A derived position in matter has prompted various interpretations. One possibility is to simply deny that aggregates 2 Henceforth, “spatiality”, as used with reference to monads (or God), concerns the relationship between a monad’s (God’s) being/substance and space; thus, the non- spatiality of monads means that their being or substance is not situated in space, although their actions/operations may be in space (and the same for God). As used with respect to bodies, spatiality refers to their extension in length, breadth, and width; hence, to declare that bodies are non-spatial means that bodies are not really extended (in the external world), but only appear extended. 3 While the topic of our investigation concerns the question of the spatial situation of Leibniz’ monads in his later metaphysics, roughly from the late 1690s onward, it is worth noting that Leibniz’ earlier work seems to support the same non-spatial status for souls/minds as one finds in the later output. In a tract from 1668-1670, he writes (in Cartesian vein) that “[w]hatever is not a body is not in space; for to be in space is the definition of a body” (L 113; G IV 110). The same outlook is likewise in evidence in the middle years, 1680s and 1690s: in A New System of the Nature and the Communication of Substances, from 1695 (G IV 477-487), Leibniz claims that “[m]inds thus have special laws that place them beyond the revolutions of matter” (L 455). 4 (bodies) are spatial, rather, aggregate spatiality is a further contribution of the mind. Hartz argues that this interpretational strategy does not lead to a Berkeleyan-style idealism since an aggregate “is real, active, and has force” (Hartz 2007, 133). A somewhat similar tactic that also denies the real extension of bodies can be found in Rutherford (1990), who argues that it does not follow from the mind-dependent status of aggregates “that aggregates are nothing real; on the contrary, Leibniz maintains that in terms of their reality aggregates are to be identified with the plurality of things from which they result [monads]” (1990, 20). In other words, the fact that monads are constitutive of matter and bodies is inconsistent with idealism: if bodies are merely mental content, then why demand that “an aggregate is nothing other than all those things taken at the same time from which it results” (G II 256)? Consequently, the line of interpretation advanced by Hartz, Rutherford, and others, is to focus on the mind-based aspects of Leibniz’ theory, with the emphasis placed on linking the non-spatiality of monads and bodies with the monad’s own intentional, mind-dependent states. But, there is another interpretative approach that, while continuing to emphasize the non-spatiality of monads, need not deny the spatiality of Leibnizian bodies. A discussion in the New Essays on the various ways that a being can be related to place or space provides the basis for this line of interpretation, as will become evident below: The Scholastics have three sorts of ubeity, or ways of being somewhere. The first is called circumscriptive. It is attributed to bodies in space which are in it point for point, so that measuring them depends on being able to specify points in the located thing corresponding to points in space. The second is the definitive. In this case, one can “define”—i.e. determine—that the located thing lies within a given space without being able to specify exact points or places which it occupies exclusively. That is how some people have thought that the soul is in the body, because they have not thought it possible to specify an exact point such that the soul or something pertaining to it is there and at no other point. Many competent people still take that view. What should be said about angels is, I believe, about the same as what is said about souls. 5 The great Thomas Aquinas believed that an angel can be in a place only through its operations [upon what is there], which on my theory are not immediate and are just a matter of the pre-established harmony. The third kind of ubeity is repletive. God is said to have it, because he fills the entire universe in a more perfect way than minds fill bodies, for he operates immediately on all created things, continually producing them, whereas finite minds cannot immediately influence or operate upon them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Realizing Monads
    anDrás kornai Realizing Monads ABSTrACT We reconstruct monads as cyclic finite state automata whose states are what Leibniz calls perceptions and whose transitions are automatically triggered by the next time tick he calls entelechy. This goes some way toward explaining key as- pects of the Monadology, in particular, the lack of inputs and outputs (§7) and the need for universal harmony (§59). 1. INTrODUCTION Monads are important both in category theory and in programming language de- sign, clearly demonstrating that Leibniz is greatly appreciated as the conceptual forerunner of much of abstract thought both in mathematics and in computer sci- ence. Yet we suspect that Leibniz, the engineer, designer of the Stepped reck- oner, would use the resources of the modern world to build a very different kind of monad. Throughout this paper, we confront Leibniz with our contemporary scientific understanding of the world. This is done to make sure that what we say is not “concretely empty” in the sense of Unger (2014). We are not interested in what we can say about Leibniz, but rather in what Leibniz can say about our cur- rent world model. readers expecting some glib demonstration of how our current scientific theories make Leibniz look like a fool will be sorely disappointed. Looking around, and finding a well-built Calculus ratiocinator in Turing ma- chines, pointer machines, and similar abstract models of computation, Leibniz would no doubt consider his Characteristica Universalis well realized in modern proof checkers such as Mizar, Coq, or Agda to the extent mathematical deduc- tion is concerned, but would be somewhat disappointed in their applicability to natural philosophy in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and Monads
    Leibniz and Monads The Human Situaon Team Omega, Spring 2010 Dr. Cynthia Freeland Overview • Leibniz’s Life • The Rise of Modernism • Monadology 1‐30 • All about Monads Leibniz 1646‐1716 The Duchess of Orleans said of him: “It's so rare for intellectuals to be smartly dressed, and not to smell, and to understand jokes.” A contemporary descripon of Leibniz “Leibniz was a man of medium height with a stoop, broad‐shouldered but bandy‐legged, as capable of thinking for several days sing in the same chair as of travelling the roads of Europe summer and winter. He was an indefagable worker, a universal leer writer (he had more than 600 correspondents), a patriot and cosmopolitan, a great scienst, and one of the most powerful spirits of Western civilisaon.” Goried Wilhelm von Leibniz “A walking encyclopedia” – King George I Monadology, 1714 Leibniz the Polymath • Studies in university: Law, philosophy, Lan, Greek • Independent: algebra, mathemacs, physics, dynamics, opcs, tried to create a submarine • Secretary of Nuremberg Alchemical Society • Laws of moon, gravity, mechanics, dynamics, topology, geology, linguiscs • Polics, internaonal affairs, economics, coinage, watches, lamps • Traveled to Paris, London, Vienna, Italy, etc. • Invented Infinitesimal calculus, created a notaon for it d(xn) = nxn‐1dx Leibniz’s Calculang Machine Leibniz and the Prince • 1676‐1716, Librarian to the Duke of Hanover • Privy councilor to successive members of the House of Brunswick of Hanover, and friend/correspondent/teacher of successive prominent women in the family
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz's Ultimate Theory Soshichi Uchii Abstract
    Leibniz’s Ultimate Theory Soshichi Uchii Abstract This is a short summary of my new interpretation of Leibniz’s philosophy, including metaphysics and dynamics. Monadology is the core of his philosophy, but according to my interpretation, this document must be read together with his works on dynamics and geometry Analysis Situs, among others. Monadology describes the reality, the world of monads. But in addition, it also contains a theory of information in terms of the state transition of monads, together with a sketch of how that information is transformed into the phenomena via coding. I will argue that Leibniz’s program has a surprisingly wide range, from classical physics to the theories of relativity (special and general) , and extending even to quantum mechanics. 1. How should we read Monadology? Among Leibniz’s papers he completed in his last years, the one that should be regarded as containing the core of his system of knowledge is Monadology (1714). It is a theory of metaphysics, but I take it that Leibniz thought that it is the foundation of dynamics, and he envisaged that dynamics should be combined with his new geometry, called Analysis Situs. There are two firm grounds for the preceding assertion. The first is that Leibniz sketched the relationship between his metaphysics and dynamics, in the two papers New System and Specimen Dynamicum (both published in 1695; English tr. in Ariew and Garber 1989). If we wish to figure out a reasonable interpretation of Monadology, this ground must be taken very seriously. The second ground is the amazing accomplishments shown in The Metaphysical Foundations of Mathematics (written around the same time as Monadology; English tr.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz' De Arte Combinatoria
    Leibniz’ De arte combinatoria John N. Martin Department of Philosophy University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, OH 45221 [email protected] John N. Martin, 2003 Page 1 Leibniz’ De arte combinatoria I. INTRODUCTION Logicians, philosophers and to judge from the Internet even the general public are vaguely aware that Leibniz held views about logic that anticipate modern ideas of proof system and algorithm. Though there are many places in Leibniz’ works that might be cited as evidence for such claims, popular works cite virtually only two of Leibniz’ shorter papers, Characteristica universalis and De arte combinatoria. Curiously, though there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of references to these papers, nothing serious has been written in recent decades about the papers themselves that could be called a professional exegesis or discussion of their logical content. The purpose of this short paper is to remedy that lack by offering a “reconstruction” of the system Leibniz sketches in De arte combinatoria, which of the two essays is the one more focused on the notions of proof and algorithm. A point of caution about method should be made at the outset. Any modern “reconstruction” of views in the history of logic is by its nature a compromise. It is an attempt to preserve as much of the original content, including its terminology and formulas, as is possible while simultaneously meeting the standards of modern metatheory. For example, if it is possible to do justice to the original by observing standard formats, then they should be Page 2 followed. For example, if it is fair to the text, it is desirable to define the syntax inductively, state definitions set theoretically, develop notions of proof within an axiom or natural deduction system, and define semantic ideas in a recursive manner parallel to syntax.
    [Show full text]
  • Gabriel Tarde
    Gabriel Tarde Monadology and Sociology Monadology and Sociology re.press Edited & translated by Theo Lorenc Open Access Statement – Please Read This book is Open Access. This work is not simply an electronic book; it is the open access version of a work that exists in a number of forms, the traditional printed form being one of them. Copyright Notice This work is ‘Open Access’, published under a creative commons license which means that you are free to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work as long as you clearly attribute the work to the authors, that you do not use this work for any commercial gain in any form and that you in no way alter, transform or build on the work outside of its use in normal academic scholarship without express permission of the author and the publisher of this vol- ume. Furthermore, for any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. For more information see the details of the creative commons licence at this website: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ This means that you can: • read and store this document free of charge • distribute it for personal use free of charge • print sections of the work for personal use • read or perform parts of the work in a context where no financial transactions take place However, you cannot: • gain financially from the work in anyway • sell the work or seek monies in relation to the distribution of the work • use the work in any commercial activity of any kind • profit a third party indirectly via use or distribution
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and Hermeneutics
    Leibniz and Hermeneutics Leibniz and Hermeneutics Edited by Juan Antonio Nicolás, José M. Gómez Delgado and Miguel Escribano Cabeza Leibniz and Hermeneutics Edited by Juan Antonio Nicolás, José M. Gómez Delgado and Miguel Escribano Cabeza This book first published 2016 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2016 by Juan Antonio Nicolás, José M. Gómez Delgado, Miguel Escribano Cabeza and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-8515-0 ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-8515-7 CONTENTS Preface ....................................................................................................... vii Part I: Leibniz and Hermeneutics Chapter One ................................................................................................ 3 The Possible Legacy of Leibniz’s Metaphysics in Hermeneutics JEAN GRONDIN Chapter Two ............................................................................................. 17 Perspective as Mediation between Interpretations JUAN A. NICOLÁS Part II: Leibniz and Heidegger Chapter Three ........................................................................................... 35 On
    [Show full text]
  • Monadology a New Translation and Guide
    Leibniz’s Monadology A New Translation and Guide Lloyd Strickland Leibniz’s Monadology A New Translation and Guide LLOYD STRICKLAND For Dan Cook and Vernon Pratt, for all of the help and support over the years: thank you © Lloyd Strickland, 2014 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun - Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 11/13pt Ehrhardt MT Pro by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 9321 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9323 8 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 0 7486 9322 1 (paperback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9324 5 (epub) The right of Lloyd Strickland to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Contents Acknowledgements iv Key vi Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 About the Text and Translation 13 The Monadology 14 The Structure of the Monadology 34 The Monadology: Text with Running Commentary 39 Appendix 162 1. Theodicy 162 2. The Principles of Nature and Grace, Founded on Reason 270 3. Leibniz to Nicole Remond: Appendix on Monads 278 Glossary of Terms 280 Questions for Further Study 283 Further Reading 285 Index 292 Acknowledgements I would like to extend my warmest thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Edinburgh University Press for feedback on the entire manuscript. Parts of the commentary were incorporated into a talk given to members of the Oxford Philosophical Society in November 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz on China and Christianity: the Reformation of Religion and European Ethics Through Converting China to Christianity
    Bard College Bard Digital Commons Senior Projects Spring 2016 Bard Undergraduate Senior Projects Spring 2016 Leibniz on China and Christianity: The Reformation of Religion and European Ethics through Converting China to Christianity Ela Megan Kaplan Bard College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2016 Part of the European History Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Kaplan, Ela Megan, "Leibniz on China and Christianity: The Reformation of Religion and European Ethics through Converting China to Christianity" (2016). Senior Projects Spring 2016. 279. https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/senproj_s2016/279 This Open Access work is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been provided to you by Bard College's Stevenson Library with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this work in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights- holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leibniz on China and Christianity: The Reformation of Religion and European Ethics through Converting China to Christianity Senior Project submitted to The Division of Social Studies Of Bard College by Ela Megan Kaplan Annandale-on-Hudson, New York May 2016 5 Acknowledgements I would like to thank my mother, father and omniscient advisor for tolerating me for the duration of my senior project.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principles of Philosophy Known As Monadology
    The Principles of Philosophy known as Monadology G. W. Leibniz 1714 Copyright © Jonathan Bennett 2017. All rights reserved [Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as though it were part of the original text. Occasional •bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations, are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . indicates the omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth. First launched: 2004 ******** 1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple substance to •come into existence naturally, for that would substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it has no parts, involve its being put together, assembled, composed, and a though it can be a part of something composite. simple substance couldn’t be formed in that way because it 2. There must be simple substances, because there are has no parts. composites. A composite thing is just a collection of simple 6. So we can say that the only way for monads to begin ones that happen to have come together. or end—to come into existence or go out of existence—is 3. Something that has no parts can’t be extended, can’t have •instantaneously, being created or annihilated all at once. a shape, and can’t be split up. So monads are the true atoms Composite things, in contrast with that, can begin or end of Nature—the elements out of which everything is made.
    [Show full text]
  • Strickland Leibniz’S Monadology a New Translation and Guide
    Leibniz’s Monadology A New Translation and Guide Lloyd Strickland Leibniz’s Monadology A New Translation and Guide LLOYD STRICKLAND For Dan Cook and Vernon Pratt, for all of the help and support over the years: thank you © Lloyd Strickland, 2014 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun - Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ www.euppublishing.com Typeset in 11/13pt Ehrhardt MT Pro by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire and printed and bound in Great Britain by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 0 7486 9321 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9323 8 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 0 7486 9322 1 (paperback) ISBN 978 0 7486 9324 5 (epub) The right of Lloyd Strickland to be identified as Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Contents Acknowledgements iv Key vi Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 About the Text and Translation 13 The Monadology 14 The Structure of the Monadology 34 The Monadology: Text with Running Commentary 39 Appendix 162 1. Theodicy 162 2. The Principles of Nature and Grace, Founded on Reason 270 3. Leibniz to Nicole Remond: Appendix on Monads 278 Glossary of Terms 280 Questions for Further Study 283 Further Reading 285 Index 292 Acknowledgements I would like to extend my warmest thanks to an anonymous reviewer for Edinburgh University Press for feedback on the entire manuscript. Parts of the commentary were incorporated into a talk given to members of the Oxford Philosophical Society in November 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz As Idealist Donald Rutherford
    Forthcoming in Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 4 (2008). Leibniz as Idealist Donald Rutherford Leibniz has long been held to be an idealist.i Minimally, this involves the claim that, in his late writings at least, Leibniz’s fundamental ontology—his inventory of the ultimately real, independently existing things—is limited to mind-like, simple substances, or monads. This fixes one meaning of the term ‘idealism’, and considerable evidence confirms that in his late writings Leibniz is, in this sense, an idealist.ii I will call this position ‘substance idealism’: the view that the only things that meet the strictest conditions on being a substance are unextended, mind-like entities. As it stands, this way of framing the commitments of an idealist metaphysics is incomplete, for it leaves undefined the ontological status of actual or concrete matter.iii In its usual signification, ‘idealism’ designates a position according to which matter lacks a mind- independent reality; it exists only as an object of perception or thought. Thus, idealism is defined not simply in terms of what kinds of things are ontologically most basic—minds or other mental entities (ideas, forms, etc.)—but also in terms of the relation of those things to matter. Broadly speaking, for the idealist, material things exist only as appearances, ideas, or the contents of mental representations. In order to distinguish this position from substance idealism, I will refer to it as ‘matter idealism’. 1 It is commonly assumed that if Leibniz is a substance idealist, he must also be a matter idealist. He must, in other words, hold that material things are merely the contents of mental representations.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy and Reason Logic, Metaphysics
    THEODICY AND REASONTHEODICY Philosophica 2 — Theodicy and Reason Logic, Metaphysics, GERETTO, PERISSINOTTO CAMPOSAMPIERO, FAVARETTI and Theology in Leibniz’s Essais de Théodicée (1710) edited by Matteo Favaretti Camposampiero, Mattia Geretto, and Luigi Perissinotto Edizioni Ca’Foscari Theodicy and Reason Philosophica Collana diretta da Luigi Perissinotto Cecilia Rofena 2 Edizioni Ca’Foscari Philosophica Direttori Luigi Perissinotto (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Cecilia Rofena (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Comitato scientifico Silvana Borutti (Università degli studi di Pavia, Italia) Jean-Pierre Cometti (Université de Provence - Aix-Marseille I, France) Arnold Davidson (University of Chicago, USA) Roberta Dreon (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Giuseppe Goisis (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Daniele Goldoni (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Mauro Nobile (Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Italia) Gian Luigi Paltrinieri (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Italia) Vicente Sanfélix Vidarte (Universitat de València-Estudi General, España) Direzione e redazione Univerisità Ca’ Foscari Venezia Dipartimento di Filosofia e Beni Culturali Palazzo Malcanton Marcorà Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Venezia http://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/col/dbc/10/Philosophica Theodicy and Reason Logic, Metaphysics, and Theology in Leibniz’s Essais de Théodicée (1710) edited by Matteo Favaretti Camposampiero, Mattia Geretto, and Luigi Perissinotto Venezia Edizioni Ca’ Foscari - Digital Publishing 2016 Theodicy and Reason:
    [Show full text]